By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Private Policy and Terms of Use.
The Pentagon has filed a new directive indicating how transgender people will be discharged from the military under Trump's ban.
While a federal judge considers blocking the policy altogether, the Pentagon is moving forward.
One day after Department of Justice lawyers struggled to explain the need for a ban on transgender people‘s service in the U.S. Armed Forces to a federal judge in Washington, D.C., the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to purge transgender service members from the military have taken another step forward. The U.S. Department of the Navy has issued formal procedures for the removal of transgender personnel, filing the directive in federal court Thursday as part of an ongoing legal battle. The new guidance orders the Navy and Marine Corps to begin involuntary separations of service members with a history of gender dysphoria after March 28, two days after a previous March 26 deadline for voluntary separations—unless they obtain a so-called “waiver,” which, according to legal experts, is nothing more than an illusion.
Keep up with the latest in LGBTQ+ news and politics. Sign up for The Advocate's email newsletter.
The administration claims the waiver provides a path for transgender troops to remain in service, but critics and attorneys involved in the case say the requirements are designed to be impossible to meet. For a waiver to even be considered, service members must have lived as their assigned sex at birth for 36 consecutive months, never attempted a gender transition, and be willing to adhere to all military standards associated with their sex assigned at birth. In short, the waiver is only available to those who are not—and have never been—transgender.
Related: Federal judge dismantles Trump's trans military ban in explosive hearing
The Navy’s directive follows President Donald Trump’s executive orders—Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” and Executive Order 14183, “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness,” which reversed previous policies that allowed transgender individuals to serve openly. The new procedures not only eliminate accommodations for transgender service members but also revoke past exemptions and establish rigid guidelines for both voluntary and involuntary separation.
Acting Secretary of the Navy Terence G. Emmert’s directive formally rescinds all prior policies allowing transgender personnel to serve in alignment with their gender identity. It states that the Department of the Navy will only recognize two sexes—male and female—and asserts that sex is “immutable.” Under these new rules, transgender service members who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria or have undergone gender transition will face automatic administrative separation. According to the directive, those affected may request voluntary separation with an honorable discharge and certain benefits retained.
Related: Trump administration admits to judge it doesn’t know how many troops are trans—or why it’s banning them
The new policy bars individuals with a history of gender dysphoria, hormone therapy, or gender-affirming surgery from enlisting or receiving commissions in the Navy or Marine Corps.
Service members identified for separation will be placed on administrative absence and designated non-deployable while awaiting final discharge. The document states that those who choose voluntary separation will be eligible for full pay and benefits during this period, while those forced out involuntarily may not qualify for voluntary separation incentives.
The procedures were disclosed in a court-mandated filing in Talbott v. Trump, where plaintiffs argue that the administration’s policies violate Equal Protection and Due Process rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights and one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, criticized the policy in an interview with The Advocate. "They're being very mysterious still about how they're going to identify people," he said. "They have not specified how they intend to identify all transgender people." Minter also highlighted the rushed nature of the implementation, noting that there were discrepancies in deadlines that seemed to be the result of basic mathematical errors. "Somebody didn't do the math correctly, which is just horrifying. It really actually matters what the date is, right? This is not just about careers; it’s about their futures, their families' well-being, and their ability to support their families."
Minter described the policy as a form of coercion, saying, "It’s not a choice. They're threatening to not only kick people out but to impose financial punishments on them. It’s like extortion." He pointed out that the administration has created an impossible situation for service members. "They’re forcing people to make huge decisions about their life at gunpoint."
Minter highlighted the case of Clayton McAllister, one of the plaintiffs from Tennessee, who had structured his life around his planned enlistment in the Air Force. He has a wife and a new child, and he quit his job based on the promise of enlisting, only to have it ripped away, he said. "These families already make sacrifices, and now they’re being hit with this for no reason. You can’t treat people this way and not expect a broader impact. Other service members are watching how the military is treating their own."
Beyond the legal ramifications, critics warn that the ban will undermine military readiness. SPARTA Pride, which represents trans service members, notes that by forcing out trained, experienced service members, the military stands to lose critical personnel in specialized fields.
Related: Trump administration says trans service members have until March 26 to quit Air Force
U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, who is presiding over Talbott v. Trump, one of two legal challenges to the ban, has openly criticized the administration’s justification for the policy. In a Wednesday hearing, Reyes questioned the government’s failure to provide evidence that transgender service members negatively impact military readiness. She also addressed the impossibility of meeting the waiver’s requirements, emphasizing concerns raised by legal experts who have called the process a deceptive attempt to avoid outright acknowledging a ban.
The Navy’s directive is part of a broader Pentagon-wide effort to enforce the new restrictions across all service branches. Since late January, similar guidance has been issued by the Army, Air Force, and Department of Defense, detailing recruitment bans, separation policies, and revised medical standards.
Reyes has indicated that she will rule on a preliminary injunction in the case, which would block the administration’s implementation of the trans military ban, by March 19.
